ACLU Files to Block Net Censorship Law

PHILADELPHIA--Civil liberties groups filed a court challenge to a
federal Internet censorship bill signed by President Clinton despite
serious constitutional concerns raised by his own Justice
Department.

At a news conference in downtown Philadelphia, the American Civil
Liberties Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic
Frontier Foundation said the Justice Department was correct in
warning that the law unconstitutionally censors valuable online
speech.

In papers filed this morning in federal District Court in
Philadelphia, the groups are seeking an injunction against the new
law, which is scheduled to go into effect 30 days from today.

Demonstrating the range of speech affected, the list of plaintiffs
includes the Internet Content Coalition, a member group including
Time Inc., Warner Bros., C/NET and The New York Times Online;
OBGYN.Net, a women's health website; Philadelphia Gay News; Salon
Magazine; and the ACLU on behalf of its members including poet
Lawrence Ferlinghetti and ACLU President Nadine Strossen (complete
plaintiff list below).

In February 1996, during "round one" of this litigation, ACLU, EFF
and EPIC filed a challenge to the ill-fated Communications Decency
Act. A three-judge panel in the same federal district court struck
down the law in June, a ruling that was upheld by a unanimous Supreme
Court one year later.

This second round challenges the so-called "Child Online
Protection Act" makes it a federal crime to "knowingly" communicate
"for commercial purposes" material considered "harmful to minors."
Penalties include fines of up to $50,000 for each day of violation,
and up to six months in prison if convicted of a crime. The
government also has the option to bring a civil suit against
individuals under a lower standard of proof, with the same financial
penalty of up to $50,000 per violation.

Despite lawmakers' claims that the bill is "narrowly tailored" to
apply only to minors, ACLU Staff Attorney Ann Beeson said that the
constitutional flaws in this law are identical to the flaws that led
the Supreme Court to strike down the CDA.

"Whether you call it the 'Communications Decency Act' or the
'Congress Doesn't Understand the Internet Act,' it is still
unconstitutional and it still reduces the Internet to what is fit for
a six-year-old," said Beeson, a member of the original ACLU v. Reno
legal team.

Although proponents claim that the law applies only to commercial
websites, nonetheless, the groups said in legal papers, the law "bans
a wide range of protected expression that is provided for free on the
Web by organizations and entities who also happen to be communicating
on the Web ... for commercial purposes.'"

In a seven-page analysis of the bill sent to President Clinton on
October 5, the Justice Department said that the bill had "serious
constitutional problems" and would likely draw resources away from
more important law enforcement efforts such as tracking down
hard-core child pornographers and child predators.

Also, the Justice Department noted, the new law is ineffective
because minors would still be able to access news groups or Internet
relay chat channels, as well as any website generated from outside of
the United States.

"It is our fervent hope," said Barry Steinhardt, President of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, "that Attorney General Reno will
concede that the new law is unconstitutional so we can avoid
prolonged litigation."

"The First Amendment still stands," he added. "A law that the
Justice Department found unconstitutional last week did not suddenly
become constitutional this week."

David Sobel, EPIC's Legal Counsel, said that making children the
excuse for ill-conceived censorship schemes is poor public
policy.

"Congress has demonstrated that, when it comes to the Internet,
it's prepared to score easy political points at the expense of
constitutional rights."

"I'm confident that the courts will again faithfully apply the
Constitution to this new medium," he added. "Let's find ways to
protect both kids and the First Amendment."

The three groups continue to jointly sponsor the Blue Ribbon
Campaign for Online Freedom of Expression -- first launched in 1996
to mobilize the Internet community against the CDA -- to provide
Netizens a platform for voicing their concerns over continuing
governmental attempts to censor the Internet. Visitors to the
campaign site can fax Attorney General Janet Reno a "don't enforce
the new law" message and join the campaign by exhibiting the Blue
Ribbon logo on their own websites. More information is available at
http://www.eff.org/br.

Attorneys in the case are Ann Beeson, Chris Hansen and J.C. Salyer
of the ACLU, Shari Steele of EFF and David Sobel of EPIC. The law
firm of Latham and Watkins is assisting the ACLU in the case. Legal
papers in the case can be accessed on the websites of all three legal
organizations at http://www.aclu.org.
http://www.eff.org and http://www.epic.org.